For decades, Argentina's foreign policy regarding the Malvina Islands has oscillated between the rhetoric of inalienable sovereignty and a latent expectation that the United States, by virtue of the Monroe Doctrine and its Pan-Americanist rhetoric, would eventually tip the scales in our favor. The current national government, confident that total geopolitical alignment with Washington would force a historical reversal in favor of our country, makes this expectation a central element of its narrative.

The conviction that the Monroe Doctrine , by proclaiming the principle of “America for the Americans,” would function as a tool for continental defense against extra-regional powers, has cemented the idea that the United States would be compelled to choose a hemispheric partner (Argentina) to the detriment of its historical ally (the United Kingdom). The relationship the United States maintains with the United Kingdom is not an anomaly, but rather the cornerstone upon which it guarantees Atlantic security . In this framework, the United Kingdom is not an intruder, but an essential link in the Western order in the South Atlantic.

Giving in to this idea poses a danger to the national interest . It affects both the territorial integrity of our country and that of our Province of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and the South Atlantic Islands. Believing that the United States will sacrifice its special relationship with the United Kingdom for Argentina's sovereign interests, as it has in the past, leads us to a passive acceptance of the fact that, in geopolitical terms, solidarity is a non-existent concept; only interests exist .

This doctrine has never been a pact of continental solidarity, but rather a tool for projecting North American imperial power over the entire American continent, along with its arrogated right to exercise an exclusive sphere of influence.

The greatest danger facing the Malvinas Cause is not only the continuation of the British occupation, but the latent possibility of a replacement of the colonial administration . Diplomatic recognition that entails the loss of territorial control is not sovereignty, it is abdication. We will have changed our colonial guardian and will remain far from exercising our true sovereign rights. There is a risk that a diplomacy without direction will end up accepting cooperation schemes where Argentine sovereignty is reduced to a mere formality; we will have gone from British colonial administration to the strategic tutelage of the United States.

As long as we continue to expect the Monroe Doctrine to operate as a protective umbrella, we will remain silent witnesses to how our own geography is used as a bargaining chip between great powers.

Bruno Bonomi holds a degree in International Relations. With extensive experience in public service, he has served as Coordinator of International Relations (2012-2015), parliamentary advisor in the MPF (2016-2020), and Undersecretary of Cross-Border Cooperation (2020-2023), specializing in the analysis of the international integration of subnational governments and regional integration policies in the Atlantic.